Hassled at the polls for OCing

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

I'm not commenting about the Sheriff at this time, just not sure that the Constable did anything in the wrong here.

If the Sheriff pulled his LTCF just on the word of the guy that called. He didn't ask him any questions. Nothing. And if he isn't considered safe to carry a firearm. We all are in a lot of trouble.

REMEMBER: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Doesn't seem to be working that way if you ask me.

The Sheriff needs to remember this. He is there to SERVE AND PROTECT. Or do Sheriffs have their own agenda that they can follow. They are ELECTED OFFICIALS, meant to REPRESENT the PEOPLES needs. Rant Over.

[QuincyTwpConstable]

Originally Posted by Mtbkski

If the Sheriff pulled his LTCF just on the word of the guy that called.

You don't know this. From all the information we have so far, it appears to be the case. Wait until 1/8 so we can find out more...

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

You don't know this. From all the information we have so far, it appears to be the case. Wait until 1/8 so we can find out more...

I'm curious exactly what else could have happened to justify the sheriff's action.
Did someone else call? Did the election board call?
Ok, if so then maybe we can not blame the constable for initiating the revocation. But the revocation is still inappropriate.
Unless they have some proof that gnbrotz did something truly threatening or illegal it changes nothing.

Please, no offense meant. I understand what your implying but I think it's a stretch. I'm glad you brought this into the conversation because thus far I completely agree with you that we only know what we know from here and the newspaper article. BUT, my comment is only because you seem to be clinging to the believe that the sheriff will pull some qualifying event out at the hearing for that time period.
I'm betting he has no such thing.

[markheck1]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

I just re-read the original post, and I don't see anything there which indicated Mr. Rotz explicitly gave the constable his name. My understanding is that the constable made that statement because he knew he could obtain Mr. Rotz's name from the voter registration rolls.

Hmmmm that's plausible too......would that be a privacy act violation?

[QuincyTwpConstable]

Believe me, from his comments in the newspaper article, I don't think the Sheriff has anything. But please consider him "innocent until proven guilty" as well. That's a fair standard for everyone involved.

Oh and as far as having his name...? at My polling place, the election officials read off each person's name as they go through the process, so the Constable probably just jotted it down - if they do it the same way there.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

Believe me, from his comments in the newspaper article, I don't think the Sheriff has anything. But please consider him "innocent until proven guilty" as well. That's a fair standard for everyone involved.

10-4

(10 char minimum)

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

You don't know this. From all the information we have so far, it appears to be the case. Wait until 1/8 so we can find out more...

Gnbrotz is not a new face here, he's been around quite some time. I'm not one to go out on a limb for someone I don't truly know, but I'm giving Mr. Rotz the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons, primarily based on who he has shown himself to be on this forum, and who the Sheriff in question has shown himself to be in matters unrelated to this case. Thankfuly, the Sheriff is on his way out.

If I'm wrong, so be it...but I strongly doubt it.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

If I'm wrong, so be it...but I strongly doubt it.

Me too. We'll know soon enough.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

Believe me, from his comments in the newspaper article, I don't think the Sheriff has anything. But please consider him "innocent until proven guilty" as well. That's a fair standard for everyone involved.

QTC, you are absolutely correct.

however, given that the sheriff did not contact gnbrotz at all before revoking his LTCF, i don't see how it is *possible* that he did an adequate investigation. how could he possibly have done an adequate investigation without even speaking to the target of that investigation?

[stevieb92]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

"innocent until proven guilty"

Obviously the Sheriff doesn't know what that phrase means....